Method and apparatus for predicting project outcomes

ABSTRACT

A method and system for analyzing a project. Values may be assigned to each factor of a predetermined set of factors relating to a project. A score representing a likely outcome of the project may be determined using the values.

Cross Reference to Related Applications

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/098,249, filed Apr. 4, 2005, which is a continuation of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 09/845,868, filed Apr. 30, 2001 (now Abandoned),which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.

The present invention relates generally to project management and, moreparticularly, to predicting the outcome of a project and takingcorrective measures to increase the likelihood of success.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Description of Related Art

As used herein, a ‘project’ is a task, typically an extensive task,undertaken by one or more people, typically a group of people. A projectoften represents an important commercial endeavour and may exist eitherstandalone, or as part of a broader program of change comprised ofmultiple projects. A project typically seeks to secure a significantchange to the status quo. This change frequently, though not always,relates to the way in which people, particularly employees, view andcarry out their work tasks.

A project can be said to have been successful if, in the judgement ofthe appropriate stakeholders within the organization, the project isdeemed to have fulfilled its agreed objectives and to have done sowithin any targeted timeframes and budgets.

Being able to reliably predict the outcome of a project before or duringimplementation would be very beneficial because if success can bedemonstrated as either uncertain or unlikely, then corrective orremedial measures could be taken to increase the likelihood of success.No method exists in the prior art for easily and reliably predicting,and, readily enabling the manipulation of, project outcomes.

A need accordingly exists for a tool for reliably predicting projectsuccess, and readily enabling manipulation of project outcomes.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, a method andapparatus are provided for predicting the outcome of a project and, ifneeded, increasing its likelihood of success. Numerical values areassigned to a set of predetermined factors affecting the outcome of theproject. The values are assigned based on a subjective evaluation ofeach factor with respect to the project. The factors include theduration of the project, the performance integrity of persons involvedin implementing the project, the commitment of management to theproject, the local commitment to the project and the effort required toimplement the project. A score is calculated based on the valuesassigned to the factors. The score is applied based upon empiricalbenchmark data on prior project scores and outcomes, preferably across arange of geographies and industries, to determine the probability ofsuccess of the project. If desired, project changes can be implementedand new values assigned to one or more factors to improve the score andincrease the probability of success of the project.

One advantage of this method is that it allows project planners andothers to easily and reliably predict the likelihood of success of aproject. The method assists those involved in the project in identifyingand understanding what factors significantly affect the outcome of theproject, and in making adjustments to increase the probability ofsuccessful implementation.

These and other features of the present invention will become readilyapparent from the following detailed description wherein embodiments ofthe invention are shown and described by way of illustration of the bestmode of the invention. As will be realized, the invention is capable ofother and different embodiments and its several details may be capableof modifications in various respects, all without departing from theinvention. Accordingly, the drawings and description are to be regardedas illustrative in nature and not in a restrictive or limiting sensewith the scope of the application being indicated in the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a fuller understanding of the nature and objects of the presentinvention, reference should be made to the following detaileddescription taken in connection with the accompanying drawings wherein:

FIG. 1 is a flowchart generally illustrating the process of predictingproject outcomes in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 2 is a graph of predicted outcome ranges for given scores based onempirical data; and

FIG. 3 is a graph similar to FIG. 2 illustrating outcome predictionsbefore and after taking remedial measures to improve the likelihood ofproject success for an example project.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention is directed to a tool for predicting the outcomeof a project, and to assist in identifying any needed corrective changesto improve the likelihood of success. The tool provides an objectiveframework for subjective judgments made by senior managers, projectmanagers, project team members and others, and uses empirical data topredict project outcomes.

Whether a project succeeds or fails is determined by a number offactors, which are also described herein as project “change elements.”It has been discovered that four factors play a particularly importantrole in determining the outcome of a project. These factors are projectduration (the “duration factor”), the performance integrity of theproject team (the “integrity factor”), the organizational commitment tochange (the “commitment factor”), and the additional local effortrequired during implementation (the “effort factor”).

The duration factor generally refers to the duration or length of theproject or the period of time until the next learning milestone, whichis an event at which project progress is typically formally assessedagainst key performance measures. It has been found that smallerdurations between learning milestones increase the likelihood ofsuccess.

This does not mean either that all lengthy projects are more likely tofail or that learning milestones can be trivially structured such thatthey occur at only very short intervals apart. Learning milestones arekey points in the delivery of the project. They are typically definedwithin the project plan to lie at set dates and typically denote eitherthe completion of major tasks or the integration of work from multipleareas. As such, it is frequently the case that learning milestones cannot be realistically structured to occur less than a few months apart,though, if it is legitimately possible to do so, then this is moredesirable. Lengthy projects per se are not more likely to fail thanshort projects. However, lengthy projects with poorly managed learningmilestones are far more likely to fail.

The integrity factor generally refers to the performance “integrity” ofthe project team. The performance integrity of the project team is basedon the configuration of its members and their overall skills and traitsrelative to the change process or project requirements. A team deemed toexhibit high performance integrity will broadly exhibit a set ofattributes and skills, including: capable leadership, clarity ofobjectives, sufficient resourcing, challenging minds, people and teamskills, self motivation, action bias and organizing skills.

The commitment factor generally refers to the organizational commitmentto the project or change. That is the extent to which collectively theorganization seeks to embrace the change. The commitment able to beachieved for major and transformational organizational change is animportant consideration, since without appropriate attention to thiscomponent, the natural tendency of many organizations, will be to resistchange. As will be discussed below, the commitment factor is preferablysubdivided into local and senior components. The local component refersto the attitudes of the local area undergoing the change. The local areareferred to includes the local management, supervisors, operational andsupport staff who will directly experience the change. The seniorcomponent refers to the perceived commitment of relevant seniormanagement to the project. The consideration of perceived seniormanagement commitment is an important element in gauging this dimension.The general organizational perception of senior management's commitmentto major change projects is often less than what senior management wouldself assess themselves as being. Nevertheless, perceived commitment ismore statistically causal in predicting project success.

The effort factor generally refers to the additional local effort, abovethe expected normal working requirements, needed during projectimplementation. The consideration of additional local effort is animportant and often overlooked factor in successful implementation.Major change projects can rarely be implemented instantly. It istherefore important to recognize the additional effort required on thepart of the area affected by the change, e.g., to effect the transitionwhilst simultaneously monitoring current operations up until the pointwhen they are discontinued and the transition completed.

A continuum of possible outcomes can be inferred from application ofthese factors: from projects that are expected to succeed to those thatare expected to fail. For example, a short project, led by a cohesive,highly skilled, motivated team, championed by senior management, andimplemented in an area receptive to change, is highly likely to succeed.Conversely, a lengthy project, led by a poorly skilled, unmotivatedteam, opposed by senior management, and implemented in an area resistantto change, will likely fail. A large number of projects, perhaps mostprojects, however, will fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum,where success or failure is much more difficult to predict. For example,if the project is of short duration and has a good project team, butsenior management commitment is variable and implementation requires agood deal of organizational effort, the likelihood of success may bedifficult to determine. A tool for predicting project success inaccordance with the invention can be used to assess the probableoutcomes of projects like these and to identify remedial or correctivemeasures that can be taken to increase the probability of success.

FIG. 1 is a flowchart 10 that generally illustrates the process forpredicting outcomes in accordance with the invention. At Step 12,numerical values are assigned to each of the factors discussed above.

The following is an example of a set of numerical values that can beused to define the change elements or factors for a project. Projectmanagers and/or others knowledgeable on the project use their subjectivejudgments in assigning the values to each factor.

Step Function Numerical Element Value Description (D) Duration Factor:duration of change 1 <2 months either to completion or learning 2 2-4months milestone 3 4-8 months 4 >8 months (I) Performance integrity ofproject 1 Very good team 2 Good 3 Average 4 Poor (C₁) Senior management1 Clearly commitment to the change communicate needs (as perceived bythe organization) 2 Seems to want success 3 Neutral 4 Reluctant (C₂)Local commitment to the change 1 Eager 2 Willing 3 Reluctant 4 StronglyReluctant (E) Local effort during implementation 1 <10% additionaleffort needed 2 10-20% additional effort needed 3 20-40% additionaleffort needed 4 >40% additional effort needed

At Step 14, the values selected for each factor are combined to generatea score. The score is preferably calculated using the followingequation:

Score=D+21+2C ₁ +C2+E

Where D=duration factor, I=integrity factor, C₁=senior managementcommitment factor, C2=local commitment factor, and E=local effortfactor.

In the equation, a weighting of two is applied to the team performanceintegrity factor (I) and the senior management commitment factor (C₁),which have been found to produce particularly strong statisticalcorrelation between the score for a project and its predicted outcome.

A single score, ranging from 7 to 28 (when using the above examplenumerical values), can thereby be calculated for a project. At Step 16,the score is compared with empirical data on scores and outcomes ofother projects. In particular, the score is preferably applied to agraph that plots scores generated by a benchmark database of otherprojects, against their success as shown, e.g., in FIG. 2. The FIG. 2graph 30 includes a shaded area 32 where outcomes are most likely tofall. In the graph the numbers marked by diamonds refer to the number ofprior projects (from a total of 225 such projects) having the indicatedoutcome for a specified score. Accordingly, a score calculated by theequation is positioned within the shaded area 32 in FIG. 2 to determinethe likely corresponding outcome range of the project.

A score of less than 14 applied to the graph shaded area 32 would bedeemed likely to be successful and hence would fall into a so-called WinZone.' A score between 14 and 21 applied to the graph would correlate toan outcome that would be difficult to predict, and such projects wouldfall into a so-called ‘Worry Zone.’ Finally, projects with a scoregreater than 21 would fall into a so-called ‘Woe Zone,’ where outcomesare deemed very likely to be unsuccessful.

For projects falling in the worry or woe zones, remedial action can betaken before a project begins and/or at appropriate milestones duringits implementation to improve the likelihood of project success. This isindicated by Step 18 in FIG. 1. The remedial action can be selectedbased on improving the numerical values of one or more factors. Thescore and likely outcome can then be again determined based on therevised factor values.

EXAMPLE

The following is an example of an outcome prediction analysis inaccordance with the invention for a given project. The project in thisexample related to the restructuring of back offices of a large retailbank, which involved major changes to processes, behavior andorganizational structures. The factor values were selected as follows:

The project was scheduled to last more than eight months, leading to aselection of D=4. The project team was deemed to have solid, but notspectacular performance integrity, leading to a selection of 1=2. Theproject was thought to be in a general culture strongly reluctant tochange with likely only moderate communication of senior managementsupport, resulting in selections of C1=2.5 and C₂=4. The project wasestimated to require approximately 10-20% additional effort on the partof the organization during implementation, resulting in a selection ofE=2.

Based on these values, the project score was calculated as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{{Score} = {D + {2I} + {2C\; 1} + {C\; 2} + E}} \\{= {4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 2}} \\{= 19}\end{matrix}$

When the score was applied to empirical data as shown in the FIG. 3graph 50, the predicted outcome fell within the Worry Zone (14<Score<21)as indicated at 52, generating serious concern about its chances ofsuccessful implementation. Remedial action was accordingly taken inthree of the four elements of change in improve the score.

First, the project timeline was broken so that structured learningmilestones occurred each 3 months. D accordingly decreased from 4 to 2.

Also, the selection, resourcing and configuration of the project teamwas significantly altered from what was originally planned. Inparticular, the team was carefully selected and resourced, and keyregional and head office general managers were actively involved inconfiguration of teams. The team now included several high performingstaff experienced in change management and ‘on board’ key back officemanagers with local knowledge and power. The value of I accordinglydecreased from 2 to 1.

Consistency and effort on the part of senior management significantlyenhanced the general perception of their commitment to the change. Inparticular, coordination of communications was marshaled through onepost (Chief Manager Organizational Effectiveness). Also, there was anassignment of a more senior and respected general manager to theproject, both to signify importance and increase the likelihood ofsuccess. Also, a travelling “road show” was put on by management toexplain the project and signal the need for success. C1 accordinglydecreased from 2.5 to 1.

Specific initiatives were employed to help improve the local commitmentto the change, including local workshops and communications and makingthe envisaged change process. C2 accordingly decreased from 4 to 3.

The project score was then recalculated:

$\begin{matrix}{{Score} = {D + 21 + {2{Ci}} + {C\; 2} + E}} \\{= {2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 2}} \\{= 11}\end{matrix}$

The improvement in score was significant, pushing the project into theWin Zone as indicated at 54 in FIG. 3. A subsequently highly successfulimplementation of the project confirmed the practical predictive valueof the inventive approach.

The method steps described above (including, e.g., inputting numericalvalues for each factor, calculating a score, applying the score toempirical data) are implemented either manually or more preferably in ageneral purpose computer, e.g., as part of an Internet or Intranet basedapplication. A representative computer is a personal computer orworkstation platform that is, e.g., Intel Pentium®, PowerPC® or RISCbased, and includes an operating system such as Windows®, OS/2®, Unix orthe like. As is well known, such machines include a display interface (agraphical user interface or “GUI”) and associated input devices (e.g., akeyboard or mouse).

The method steps are preferably implemented in software, and accordinglyone of the preferred implementations of the invention is as a set ofinstructions (program code) in a code module resident in the randomaccess memory of a computer. Until required by the computer, the set ofinstructions may be stored in another computer memory, e.g., in a harddisk drive, or in a removable memory such as an optical disk (foreventual use in a CD ROM) or floppy disk (for eventual use in a floppydisk drive), or downloaded via the Internet or some other computernetwork. In addition, although the various methods described areconveniently implemented in a general purpose computer selectivelyactivated or reconfigured by software, one of ordinary skill in the artwould also recognize that such methods may be carried out in hardware,in firmware, or in more specialized apparatus constructed to perform thespecified method steps.

Having described preferred embodiments of the present invention, itshould be apparent that modifications can be made without departing fromthe spirit and scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for analyzing a project, comprising:assigning, utilizing a processing device in communication with a memory,values to each factor of a predetermined set of factors relating to theproject; and performing processing associated with determining,utilizing the processing device and the values, a score to represent alikely outcome of the project.